Disney's Live Action The Little Mermaid

[LittleBuford]

LOL, what in the world did I miss that makes Barbie controversial?

I just got home from watching it. It is much more political than I thought it would be, with a level of “woke” messaging that far exceeds that of any of the recent Disney “flops” that have been savaged in these threads. I’m therefore not surprised that some commentators have deemed it controversial, nor that such criticisms are far more muted than they would be for a Disney film.

For what it’s worth, I enjoyed it, but not as much as the hype led me to think I would.

 

[LittleBuford]

LOL, I guess cause there's LGBTQ in it (don't they always say they just don't like that those people are so out about things, they aren't trying to eliminate them?).

Queer themes actually weren’t directly addressed by the film, though one of the Barbies is played by a trans woman.

 

[Chi84]

I just got home from watching it. It is much more political than I thought it would be, with a level of “woke” messaging that far exceeds that of any of the recent Disney “flops” that have been savaged in these threads. I’m therefore not surprised that some commentators have deemed it controversial, nor that such criticisms are far more muted than they would be for a Disney film.

For what it’s worth, I enjoyed it, but not as much as the hype led me to think I would.

Can you imagine the outrage here if Disney had made Barbie?

 

[LittleBuford]

Can you imagine the outrage here if Disney had made Barbie?

Oh, we all know how that would have played out!

 

[DKampy]

I just got home from watching it. It is much more political than I thought it would be, with a level of “woke” messaging that far exceeds that of any of the recent Disney “flops” that have been savaged in these threads. I’m therefore not surprised that some commentators have deemed it controversial, nor that such criticisms are far more muted than they would be for a Disney film.

For what it’s worth, I enjoyed it, but not as much as the hype led me to think I would.

I think because such voices are so concerned with “woke” Disney they did not noticed Barbie till the hype was too large to do any Damage… and now support outweighs and muted such critics

 

[LittleBuford]

…but what kinda cultural impact?

I know you’re being sarcastic, but I think both films will have a lasting cultural impact.

 

[MrPromey]

If D+ sub is tied to trams ridership, they can be run at every park around the world.

Que the new day in the life of limited run reality series - Making Magic in Heihei!

It'll feature magical moments like security coming along to help people with cars that won't start and tram operators stopping to retrieve Mickey ears that have blown off the head of some 50 year old guest.

Also included will be the darker more serious moments like when they have to deal with a group they find trying to tailgate with an open grill behind their car.

It'll be entirely produced by TDO with a billed-to cost of $250 million to D+ for an 8 episode series.

And the trams will resume operation, once the production begins - best of all, since it's "reality" tv, the non-scripts can be handled by producers and they can sidestep the actors and writers strikes!

They need to get started on it stat!

Speaking of strikes, next up, another limited series "Creativity is Our North Star", following the lives of people working in the writer's rooms of some of their most popular series. It'll be budgeted at about $1 billion for 6 episodes and then they'll be able to afford to end the writers strike!

 

[Chi84]

Warner Brothers did a bait and switch.

One of the most successful (and funniest) of all time based on what I’ve been reading today.

 

[MrPromey]

No, you don't get it if you think it's a trick.

Movies that made a profit in the theatrical window get even more money for their studios when their product winds up on D+.

It's not hiding anything.

Don't you think that Disney would use that accounting trick to make D+ look better by transferring the theatrical profits from Guardians Vol 3 to D+?

I think the thing a lot of people find troubling is, Disney used to make great profits on the theatrical runs on their "hits" and then rake in all that extra profit for years to come from the secondary markets.

Now, they're relying on that secondary income to break even... and maybe eventually profit.*

... and people are saying that pointing that out is somehow moving the goalposts and wishing for them to fail.

I understand both sides but it's kind of arguing two different things.

Anyway, I really hope Wish doesn't suck. This weekend has shown that it's more than possible for something that's not a remake or a sequel to kill at the box office.

The people that showed up to see Oppenheimer and Barbie on opening weekend** were not likely people that would have waited 3-6 months to catch either of them on D+ for "free" if they'd been Disney releases so that excuse is, to me, getting a little thin.

If there is excitement around the movie, people will go see it.

If Disney promotes it appropriately and it gets good critical reviews and good word-of-mouth and they avoid controversy, people will go - especially during the window it's being released.

*Being that TLM is a remake and not new IP, there is no real park boost like an attraction or long-term merchandising for them to really milk from this - one of the real financial hazards of these remakes - and when it's D+ and Disney isn't getting an outright check with real money from anyone, can they even accurately calculate how much any one thing on D+ does to create revenue over there? Like if you watch Bluey, is there any way for them to know that's why you're paying for D+ or that without it, you'd have just watched something else on D+? Obviously big theatrical hits like Avatar will move the needle but what about TLM and Quantumania?

**Went to see a noonish showing of Openheimer in Saturday and the lobby of the theater was PACKED. Seriously, it's the most people I've seen in there since theaters reopened. Both going in and coming out of my movie, I was struck by just how many people were dressed in pink, too.

 

[LittleBuford]

One of the most successful (and funniest) of all time based on what I’ve been reading today.

The trailer definitely made the film seem much frothier than it actually is. Although I was expecting a heavy dose of feminism, even I was surprised (not in a bad way) by the forcefulness and extent of the messaging.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I think the thing a lot of people find troubling is, Disney used to make great profits on the theatrical runs on their "hits" and then rake in all that extra profit for years to come from the secondary markets.

Except that didn’t really happen with a lot Disney’s Disney branded live action films. Even if animation it’s was more recent in terms of overall history. Disney has been using secondary markets to make up for their high costs since the 1930s.

 

[MrPromey]

Except that didn’t really happen with a lot Disney’s Disney branded live action films. Even if animation it’s was more recent in terms of overall history. Disney has been using secondary markets to make up for their high costs since the 1930s.

I've seen this brought up a few times but I don't understand - were they selling copies of Sleeping Beauty on 16mm?

Or are we talking about licensing and theatrical re-releases?

Because both of those things still happen today outside of most of what's being discussed here.*

A lot of that live action stuff was made with "money" that was stuck on the other side of the pond, too which had a lot to do with why they got made since none of that was helping the US Disney Co. while sitting over there... and why most of the people in those movies talk with that funny Steve and Martin accent.

I'm not sure I can fathom how Disney of the 1930's and 40's could have waited years for multiples of their releases to turn a profit without going belly-up in the meantime without a huge back-catalog to support them, though.

Are you saying Silly Symphonies was keeping things afloat?


*Obviously, the $5 weekday re-releases don't match what they would make prior to VHS and the big anniversary re-releases to theaters are increasingly rare.

 

[MrPromey]

Yeah I wasn't trying to say that Gray Man was some box office success, just that its an example of this scenario. And yes its small box office performance doesn't change the premise of a studio releasing a film and then paying itself to put it on its own streaming service.

Deadline estimates $100M I believe for D+ to have TLM, but I agree that is probably low.

Except the release of movies like Gray Man... and Glass Onion, and Brittany Runs a Marathon and many others released by the likes of Netflix and Amazon aren't to make money at the theaters - it's to make them eligible for awards because they had a real theatrical release.

That's why the windows are so short, the theatrical releases are not marketed, and the theater counts are so low. They don't want people going to buy a movie ticket to see these things - they want people to subscribe or stay subscribed to be able to see them.

If you didn't understand that before, you do now and if you did understand it, you're knowingly using a disingenuous argument.

 

[MrPromey]

... Or are cool enough to get invited by an older gay who still throws a decent Oscars party...

Just throwing this out there: I'm willing to work on being cool if there are any older gays throwing cool parties in the central Florida area.

I'll bring food from Publix. I'll even make food if that gets me somewhere... or does that make me less cool?

People like chocolate fountains, right? I have a chocolate fountain.

 

[Disney Irish]

Except the release of movies like Gray Man... and Glass Onion, and Brittany Runs a Marathon and many others released by the likes of Netflix and Amazon aren't to make money at the theaters - it's to make them eligible for awards because they had a real theatrical release.

That's why the windows are so short, the theatrical releases are not marketed, and the theater counts are so low. They don't want people going to buy a movie ticket to see these things - they want people to subscribe or stay subscribed to be able to see them.

If you didn't understand that before, you do now and if you did understand it, you're knowingly using a disingenuous argument.

Once again the point wasn't about their theatrical performance. It was to show how Netflix pays for films overall, even ones they help produce.

I understand how the award release works, in fact these type of films only have to be released in one theater in one major market, LA or NY, to be eligible for awards in the US for example. But Netflix decided to do a larger release, albeit not a wide release for these films.

 

[MrPromey]

Once again the point wasn't about their theatrical performance. It was to show how Netflix pays for films overall, even ones they help produce.

I understand how the award release works, in fact these type of films only have to be released in one theater in one major market, LA or NY, to be eligible for awards in the US for example. But Netflix decided to do a larger release, albeit not a wide release for these films.

So you understand Netflix was funding those movies directly - not picking them up for the secondary market as is being discussed for this movie.

That would suggest that you also understand the Netflix example doesn't compare to a multi-month 3k+ theatrical release... but you're still somehow arguing it is in some way related and relevant.

 

[Disney Irish]

So you understand Netflix was funding those movies directly - not picking them up for the secondary market as is being discussed for this movie.

That would suggest that you also understand the Netflix example doesn't compare to a multi-month 3k+ theatrical release.

Wait, you mean like Disney does when they fund their own movies directly and then pays themselves for releasing on D+. You mean that type of situation that Netflix does right?

Doesn't matter how many theaters they get released in, the overall economics is the same. The only question is where they get revenue from, Netflix only from subs and the PVOD market, and Disney a combination box office, subs, and PVOD market (and other ancillary revenue).

 

[MrPromey]

Wait, you mean like Disney does when they fund their own movies directly and then pays themselves for releasing on D+. You mean that type of situation that Netflix does right?

Sure... in the case of something like Pinocchio.

Not in the case of this movie.

 

[Disney Irish]

Sure... in the case of something like Pinocchio.

Not in the case of this movie.

You guys have to get this idea out of your heads that streaming is somehow "less than", and that box office is the only determining factor for movie success or failure.

This Hollywood strike has streaming profit sharing at its center (along with other things), that right there should tell you that all of Hollywood sees streaming as a profit center not just a cost center.

 

[TP2000]

You guys have to get this idea out of your heads that streaming is somehow "less than", and that box office is the only determining factor for movie success or failure.

This Hollywood strike has streaming profit sharing at its center (along with other things), that right there should tell you that all of Hollywood sees streaming as a profit center not just a cost center.

Disney+ has now lost Billions of dollars for the company in the past 4 years. This most recent earnings report was supposedly good news because Disney+ only lost $659 Million in 90 days time. Can you imagine the budgetary carnage at the Parks division if they were losing a couple Billion dollars per year?

If actors start getting higher residuals and income from streaming movies in perpetuity (and I'm not saying they don't deserve to, I heard that some streaming shows only pay actors 50 bucks or less in residuals per episode), that would seem to make the streaming business model like Disney+ even more costly than it already is.

Higher labor and production costs for Disney+ won't suddenly increase their profits. Only higher subscription revenue and lowered labor and production costs will finally create a profit from Disney+.